Adjournment intimation in income-tax enquiry was not a statutory notice, so registered service was unnecessary.

An adjournment intimation sent after an assessee's request for deferment of an Income-tax enquiry was not a fresh notice under Section 23(2) or a requisition under Section 63 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The High Court noted that the Income Tax Officer could adjourn the enquiry without issuing a renewed statutory notice, because the Act contemplated the enquiry proceeding on the day fixed in the original notice or soon afterwards. The communication was only a courtesy intimation of the adjourned date, so the statutory rule requiring registered service did not apply. The assessment under Section 23(4) was therefore not invalid for want of registered service.

---

---

Issues: Whether an intimation of adjournment sent by post or telegram, after an assessee's request for adjournment of an enquiry under Section 23(2), is itself a notice under Section 23(2) or a requisition under Section 63 of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: The power of the Income Tax Officer to adjourn an enquiry was held to exist independently of any fresh notice under Section 23(2). The statutory language contemplated that the enquiry may proceed on the day fixed in the notice or as soon afterwards as may be, and there was no requirement that an adjourned hearing must be preceded by a renewed notice in the same form as the original notice. The communication intimating the adjourned date was not one which the Act required the officer to issue, and it was treated only as a voluntary intimation of courtesy, not as a statutory notice or requisition. Since the communication was not a notice or requisition under Section 23(2), the rule as to registered service did not apply.

Conclusion: The intimation of adjournment was neither a notice under Section 23(2) nor a requisition under Section 63, and the assessment under Section 23(4) was not invalid for want of registered service.

---